Military Suicides and How the NRA has Helped

[mikeb302000]

http://m.military.com/news/article/showdown-looming-behind-pentagon-suicide-battle.html">Military.com reports
on a report issued by the Center for a New American Security, which recommends that Congress repeal a provision in last year's National Defense Authorization Act that bars military commanders from talking with troops about troops' personally owned firearms -- a factor in nearly half of soldier suicides last year. Report authors Margaret Harrell and Nancy Berglass put it this way:

"Congress should rescind the NDAA 2011 restriction on discussing personally owned weapons so that unit leaders can suggest to service members exhibiting high-risk behavior, acting erratically or struggling with depression that they use gunlocks or store their guns temporarily at the unit armory," they wrote. "Given this change in law, unit leaders should engage both at-risk service members and their family members, and encourage them to obtain gunlocks or to store privately owned weapons out of the household."

"Multiple studies indicate that preventing easy access to lethal means, such as firearms, is an effective form of suicide prevention," authors Harrell and Berglass wrote.

The situation is absolutely dramatic.

U.S. Army suicides have climbed steadily since 2004. The Army reported a record-high number of suicides in July 2011 with the deaths of 33 active and reserve component service members reported as suicides.

Suicides in the Marine Corps increased steadily from 2006 to 2009, dipping slightly in 2010. It is impossible, given the paucity of current data, to determine the suicide rate among veterans with any accuracy. However, the VA estimates that a veteran dies by suicide every 80 minutes."

In typical fashion, the conscience-less NRA, fought for this bill restricting military commanders from having personal guns registered or even discussion personal gun ownership with their troops. The result: people died.

What's your opinion? Do the gun-rights folks seem to lose sight of the big picture in their zeal for opposing gun restrictions? Shouldn't commanders of distraught troops be free to intervene in any and every way possible to help those under their command? Is the NRA's obsession with never ever allowing data to be compiled about who owns what weapons a bit exaggerated?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
http://www.mikeb302000.blogspot.com/">(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

[ileus]

1. It should be everyones's obession to keep private property private.

after troops register firearms....and are diagnosed with depression then what? What if they see combat and return home, then what? What if their wife files for divorce while they're gone? What should be done with the information and how can it be used?

[dtexdem]

6. I agree only in that those arguing as you do are definitely obsessed.

Unfortunately, your attitude really, really makes things worse for all of us. Sorry, but I can find no other response to your callous statement.

[friendly_iconoclast]

8. Would you care to discuss the issues he raised, now that you're through moralizing?

The self-righteous ire of the offended prohibitionist is always amusing to observe...

[SteveM]

15. Just some name-calling? Why am I not surprised?...

:boring:

[iverglas]

21. um ... because you made that up yourself?

One would hardly be surprised at something one made up one's self, one would think.

[SteveM]

45. Say you're thinking about self-made surprises? Hardly one.

[SteveM]

16. The OP would be better served by an "obsession" with the 5th Amendment. nt

[gejohnston]

2. Don't know much about the military do you?

This is true with both US and Canadian military forces:
Personal firearms of everyone living in barracks must be kept in unit/base armory for storage when not being used
Personal firearms of everyone living in base family housing is registered with the military police.

In the US, commanders have limited control outside the gates. Yeah they can make bars off limits and make curfews etc.
What value does registering the guns of those living off base? Do seriously think a gun or lack of, registered or not will actually make a difference in preventing suicide? How would the commander enforce such a registration if you live off base? Do you think NCIS or AFOSI could actually get a warrant (called a search order, signed by military judge or base commander. Support group commander in the Air Force.) just to see if you have a gun on your off base residence?
Yeah I know there is some Joyce funded shill study someplace that claims that. But the before/after in jurisdictions where it has actually been done says different.

[ObamaFTW2012]

10. When I went aboard an NWS

I brought my 1911 with me. I had to "register" it, which meant filling out a form identifying myself and my weapon, tearing off the bottom portion of that form as my receipt (kinda like a coat check), clearing my weapon, and storing it in a safe while I was on the base. Everything was shredded when I retrieved my weapon and left the installation.

I've only had 1 negative encounter, and that's when one grumpy officer decided that he was too busy to bother with me and my weapon. An enlisted guy helped me out, and he and his coworkers expressed admiration for my .45 while we registered my weapon. They also mentioned that they did not like their issue 9mm's.

[jmg257]

3. How would registering their guns prevent someone from killing themselves?

Controlled gunlocks and out-of home storage could help with rash/gun-only suicides, but there is still the issue that 52% killed themselves without guns. The report did list many other good points that could be addressed to help reduce all the cases of suicide, points that didn't deal with one of the means used.


The complaint about the 'discussing private arms' issue is reasonable...why they allow conversations in some aspects but not others does not make sense...

From the report:

"The current law does allow military
leaders to discuss privately owned weapons with
service members who appear to be a threat to
themselves or others, but commanders cannot ask
a severely depressed individual about personally
owned weapons if that individual denies that he or
she is considering harming himself or herself."


The NDAA Section 1062 under discussion, which was developed with help by the NRA-ILA.


"SEC. 1062. PROHIBITION ON INFRINGING ON THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHT
TO LAWFULLY ACQUIRE, POSSESS, OWN, CARRY, AND OTHERWISE
USE PRIVATELY OWNED FIREARMS, AMMUNITION, AND
OTHER WEAPONS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection (c), the Secretary
of Defense shall not prohibit, issue any requirement relating
to, or collect or record any information relating to the otherwise
lawful acquisition, possession, ownership, carrying, or other use of
a privately owned firearm, privately owned ammunition, or another
privately owned weapon by a member of the Armed Forces..."


Which came about, according to the NRA, in response to this:

"Appallingly, the Fort Riley regulation required troops stationed there to register privately owned firearms kept off-base and firearms owned by their family members residing anywhere in Kansas. It prohibited soldiers who have carry permits from carrying for protection off-base. And, it authorized unit commanders to set arbitrary limits on the caliber of firearms and ammunition their troops may privately own.

Meanwhile, DOD’s plan would have required military commanders to require troops to register privately-owned firearms kept off-base, and authorized commanders to require troops living off-base to keep privately-owned firearms and ammunition locked in separate containers—the latter a requirement that the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)".


Were the restrictions & rules re:discussing personal arms with troops developed by the DoD?

[spin]

11. Why should a member of the military with a concealed carry license be prohibited ...

from carrying his firearm for protection off base?

Why should a member of the military have to register firearms owned by his FAMILY? What exactly does that mean? Suppose my grandson who lives in the same house as I do joins the military. Does he have to register all my firearms and the firearms his parents have in our house? What if he marries and lives off base with his wife and his wife owns firearms?

Why should the base commander be allowed to determine the caliber of the firearms an off duty soldier has as well as the amount of ammo he can have? Does the soldier have to sell his .45 auto handgun or his 30-06 rifle if he moves to a base with a different commander who dislikes those calibers?

If a soldier living off base has a firearm in his home for self defense, why should he be required to keep the unloaded firearm in one locked container and the ammo in another? That effectively makes the firearm absolutely useless for self defense and might expose his family to serious harm or death in case of a home invasion. First the soldier or his wife would have to run to one box and get the firearm, then race to the other box to get the ammo and finally load the weapon (which might the required to be only a .22 caliber.)

Give me a break.

[jmg257]

13. Are these rhetorical questions? I have no idea...why? nt

[spin]

22. Actually I should have mentioned ...

that I'm glad that I'm an NRA member when the NRA fights to protect the rights of people in the service.

I can understand why the military would want to regulate firearms stored on the base. I disagree with regulation of firearms legally owned by members of the service off the base and I definitely can not see any reason why the members of a soldier's family should have to have their firearms registered.

It almost seems to me that the government is terrified of the military.

[jmg257]

39. That's all well and good - I was just wondering why you were asking (me) all those questions.

Not sure if you were making a point in general, 'arguing' with something I posted, or ???

[spin]

40. It was to make the point that the regulations were foolish ...

and had nothing to do with you. Sorry that I was less than clear on that point. My bad.

[jmg257]

41. No worries...just making sure my stuff was clear! :) nt

[spin]

43. No problem. The confusion was my fault. (n/t)

[gejohnston]

17. this one gets me

and firearms owned by their family members residing anywhere in Kansas.

That would include his grand parents in Kingman? What if his brother in Garden City buys a gun and forgets to tell the soldier so it would be registered? An article 15 for that? Commander going to get the CID to go to Garden City to check it out? Not being army, but my guess CID would say something like "we have better fucking things to do."
Commander get a warrant for relatives in other parts of Kansas? Yeah, I can see the JAG going for that.
No, not developed by DoD. Developed by someone who got their information on the military legal system from old movies.

[iverglas]

19. what is with the pointless and ridiculous questions?

That would include his grand parents in Kingman? What if his brother in Garden City buys a gun and forgets to tell the soldier so it would be registered?

If you're so worried, why don't you INFORM YOURSELF?

How the hell would anyone here know the answer?

I mean, apart from the fact that no minimally reasonable person would interpret "family members" to mean anything other than members of the household: spouse, children, stepchildren.

What a mountain of bizarre rubbish you have constructed on the basis of absolutely nothing.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

25. "but that is what the reg said"

actually, I'd better note the (almost) full contents:

rhetorical question
look it up
but that is what the reg said
"reasonable person" does not mean shit in our system, all is specifically defined.
I learned from the best, which is you

(a) I know what a rhetorical question is, and they were not

(b) that is what the reg said -- and you know this because ... ?
You're telling me the regs did not define "family"?
And I'm laughing.

I'm saying a reasonable person would not think that the regs do not define family, just in case that wasn't clear.

[gejohnston]

28. really?

I'm fucking impressed
I haven't
maybe, but what would the point of having guns on the other side of the state registered even they are nowhere near the post, where the soldier lived? If it were simply his or her immediate family, why "any family member anywhere in the state." A reasonable person would also think that such a stupid fucking regulation could also have a stupid fucking definition, otherwise it it would simply state in the member's home.

Laughing, good. Glad to see you took my advice.
Are you always this shrill? Or just here.

[rl6214]

4. I don't trust any reports coming out of think tanks

They are always biased.

"Do the gun-rights folks seem to lose sight of the big picture in their zeal for opposing gun restrictions? "

NO

" Shouldn't commanders of distraught troops be free to intervene in any and every way possible to help those under their command?"

Not at the expense of the 2nd A

"Is the NRA's obsession with never ever allowing data to be compiled about who owns what weapons a bit exaggerated?"

NO

[iverglas]

20. snork

I don't trust any reports coming out of think tanks

Colour me surprised at that.

:rofl:

Here, just in case you might want to know something about this particular think tank.

http://www.cnas.org/

I don't know the first thing about it, having had only a quick skim, so I'm not going to open my mouth and spout ignorant noise.

" Shouldn't commanders of distraught troops be free to intervene in any and every way possible to help those under their command?"
Not at the expense of the 2nd A

And allowing commanders to DISCUSS a subordinate's guns with them and RECOMMEND that the subordinate secure the guns if there is evidence that s/he is at risk of committing suicide (or homicide) would meet that standard ... how?

Ideology over fucking everything. This thread makes that pretty damned clear.

[rl6214]

36. Falls pretty much along the lines of the doctor issue

you think they should be able to ask about firearms, I don't. same thing here.

[aikoaiko]

5. Here is a link to the article in case you don't wish to click on the blind link in the OP

http://www.military.com/news/article/showdown-looming-behind-pentagon-suicide-battle.html

[spin]

7. Thanks. (n/t)

[iverglas]

27. here's a surprise

That's what the link in the OP is.

Do you people not have that handy little function where you hover your curser over a link and you look down at the bottom of your screen and you see what the link is to?

I suppose if you're using the moronic IE you might not ...

But hey, the good news is, you can use the "copy" function to copy the link (I think it's called "shortcut" in IE, browser for dummies that it is), and then go copy it into the address line of your browser and see what it is.

Amazingly, the link is not really blind at all. Can't speak for anybody looking at it.

Always happy to help.

[gejohnston]

30. I always thought

Chrome was the browser for dummies.

[aikoaiko]

33. Thanks for your concern. I'm happy with providing this service.

Blind links don't have to be deceptive -- only uncertain of where they take you after you click on them.

[AtheistCrusader]

9. Because the owner of the firearm will forget the location of the key

the combination, or access to the armory upon deciding to use the firearm.

Fucking duh.

Your shit can't get much stupider.

[jmg257]

38. Trickier then that...If a gunlock is intended to stop rash suicide attempts by gun owners, one

would have to see that the owner didn't hold the key or know the combination.

[spin]

12. There are a lot of ways to commit suicide ...

If a person is serious about killing himself, the lack of a firearm is hardly a challenge or a deterrent.

[Abin Sur]

14. Look at Japan; one of the highest suicide rates in the world,

and nary a firearm to be found in civilian hands.

I'm surprised more suicides don't take the "Thelma and Louise" route, driving their car off a cliff. It's showy, you get the ride of your life (and death), and whatever pain occurs surely lasts for only an instant.

[iverglas]

18. what an amazing bunch of mewling and puking in this one

Military commanders are forbidden from discussing their subordinates' personal firearms with them, is what I gathered from the post.

If commanders were able to do that, and in particular to urge or even suggest that subordinates in apparent emotional or psychological distress deposit their firearms for safekeeping, lives might be saved.

"According to data quoted in the CNAS report, 48 percent of military suicides in 2010 took place with personally owned weapons."

Firearms suicides are often acts of impulse, and in this particular situation it isn't difficult to see that they are the acts of people who are suffering. I would actually expect regular posters in this forum, from what I have seen of them, to have some concern for suicidally depressed members of the military.

Anybody want to try addressing this very real situation, and the unutterably bizarre fact that military commanders are prohibited from so much as broaching the question of whether someone apparently at risk of suicide should take steps to secure their firearms out of reach?

Perhaps we could just also recall that the family members of these people are at risk too. Some of these suicides are murder-suicides.

[gejohnston]

24. It only says commanders may not

has nothing to do with others in the chain of command or mental health. If the commander is that concerned, he or she may order the soldier/marine/sailor/airman for a mental health evaluation.
It started over what some over reach at a specific post, which had nothing to do with mental health. Read the whole thing with an open mind.

[iverglas]

26. well, my mind is hereby open

What purpose does it serve to prohibit commanders from having this discussion?

[gejohnston]

29. Honestly?

most likely an over reaction to a stupid and questionable proposed regulation. Could also be because the legal power commanders have.
Not that it really matters anyway, in my experience the commander is not going to anyway, at least not personally. At most, I saw any of my commanders maybe once a month, mostly passing in the hallways. So, he or she is not going to know first hand. Of course, the commander gets screwed if anything happens. The people around you are going to notice. If I happened to notice an issue with one of the airman working under me, it would stay at our level as much as possible. I would suggest he or she go to mental health (as non commander, a legal concept in the US, I do not know if I could have ordered it.) Odds are, I would know what private arms he or she had by just working together. Sometimes living together (esp. when I was in Combat Camera). I would know their SO, the dog's name. They would most likely know that about me. If he or she lived in the barracks, their personal guns are in the base armory (IIRC, that is also true with Canadian Forces).

[Union Scribe]

35. How about a cite?

I'd like one in re your claim about acts of impulse. "Often" is an awfully slippery term.

[russ1943]

44. Hard to read just one.

And researchers have found that impulsivity also plays a major role in a suicide attempt, meaning that many suicides are the result of a short-term, immediate crisis rather than painstakingly planned. http://www.allpsychologycareers.com/topics/suicide-prevention.html


In 2005, the most recent year for which mortality data are available, suicide was the second-leading cause of death among Americans 40 years of age or younger. Among Americans of all ages, more than half of all suicides are gun suicides. In 2005, an average of 46 Americans per day committed suicide with a firearm, accounting for 53% of all completed suicides. Gun suicide during this period accounted for 40% more deaths than gun homicide.
Why might the availability of firearms increase the risk of suicide in the United States? First, many suicidal acts — one third to four fifths of all suicide attempts, according to studies — are impulsive. Among people who made near-lethal suicide attempts, for example, 24% took less than 5 minutes between the decision to kill themselves and the actual attempt, and 70% took less than 1 hour.2
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0805923

Since suicidal behaviors are often quite impulsive, removing guns, medications, knives, and other instruments people often use to kill themselves from the immediate environment can allow the individual time to think more clearly and perhaps choose a more rational way of coping with their pain. http://www.medicinenet.com/suicide/page4.htm

impulsivity of gun suicide, Google offers up over 6,000,000 hits in less than a second.

[rl6214]

37. Do you want your employer asking you about the personal

aspects of your life?

If you were a gun owner, do you think your boss needs to know about your firearm ownership? I think not. Just because someone is in the military, they are still just bosses that don't need to pry into an employees personal life.

[pipoman]

31. I've seen the faces and conversed with these guys

who have been subjected to enormous horror and constant fear..the presence of a gun is merely a convenience. Is there a higher success rate? Probably..but survival from a failed attempt is also, sometimes, worse than death.

[krispos42]

32. Yeah, the problem isn't mental health care, or multiple deployments, or useless wars

We can do all that stuff, just as long as the troops aren't committing suicide with guns!



Hmmm, tough choice. Get out of marriage-wrecking, mentally-traumatic foreign military adventures to lower the combat stress and thus suicides of our troops, OR take away their privately-owned guns.

:think: :hurts:

[Tuesday Afternoon]

34. +1

[Atypical Liberal]

42. If I'm not concerned about criminals using guns, I am even less concerned about suicides.

I am never going to allow the use of firearms by criminals to be used as an excuse for curtailing the rights of everyone else like me.

But I'm even less interested in letting the actions of the suicidal to be used as an excuse for curtailing firearm rights.

I'm sorry there are a few people in the world that do bad things with guns, but that's just the way it is.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

46. I am not a member of the NRA but, this post should win an award

for Biggest Crap Post for the Year.

[SteveM]

47. You think this post beats out all the others? Wow. nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

48. well, haha. should we start a thread for contenders? this is a stretch though.